>> yes, a supplementary question to the prime minister. i remind the prime minister that one member of this house, just one, was elected promising a carbon tax. 149 members of this house including every coalition member and every labour member was elected ruling out a tax. i asked the prime minister since when does one vote trump 149 votes unless the real prime minister of this country is senator bob brown? >> the prime minister? >> well, heavens above, mr. speaker, the members -- the member -- >> order! >> ruling out a carbon price was elected in ruling out a carbon price, i don't think so. you ever look behind you. >> because you probably should

have. let's have a look at the coalition and its promises to the australian people. prime minister howard, who i disagreed across many long years but whom i would say about he came to this place wanting to change australia and make improvements for the future of australia. he wanted to be remembered for the things he had created, not the things he had destroyed. unlike the leader of the opposition. prime minister howard went to an election promising emissions trading. then, of course, there are the members of the front bench who engaged in negotiations with the government and endorsed carbon pricing. the member who was there talking about the importance of carbon pricing. the member for wentworth that went for discussions on carbon pricing, he was reinforced on the coalition backbench who go to their electorates and try and close themselves as people who

care about climate change and what to act on carbon pricing. so let's not have any of this hypocrisy. let's not have any of the hypocrisy that's just been on display by the leader of the opposition. effectively this comes down to a decision as to whether you believe in acting and making a difference for australia's future, whether you believe in listening to what the australians -- >> the members have been used. >> using the opportunities that this parliament has given us to make a change for the future of this country. a change that will be better for prosperity. better for jobs. better for a clean energy future, and it's a change that's delivered fairly. or whether you decide if your politics is about destruction and you want australia to miss the change in the global economy to a clean energy future. no new jobs, studies what the

leader of the opposition is advocating. well, can i say to the leader of the opposition, now is the time for him to put aside the brutal politics he has played with climate what i think, in believing that climate change is real one moment. climate change is not real the next. carbon should be priced one moment, carbon should be priced the next. now, is the time for the leader of the opposition to actually try and do something right for this country. now is the time for the leader of the opposition to put away his slogans, put away his spin, put away his propensity for political destruction and actually work with the rest of the parliament to do the right thing by his country. it's time he looked inside himself and tried to see if there are any convictions in there about the nation's future because i can't identify one

from his behaviors. >> member for chipley has the call. >> my question for the minister for integration and citizenship. will the minister outline for the house what the government is doing to support multiculturism in australia and how has this strategy than achieved and are there any risks for this strategy? >> the minister for immigration citizenship. >> the that i think the minister for his question. our response to the australian multicultural environment that it's an opportunity for the government and for the house to say clearly and openingly australian multiculturism has worked and embrace it. australia invites new members in our community to fully participate in our society. the celebration of new cultures takes place in an environment of freedom and respect. and traditional australian values. and whenever there is a conflict between those values, of course, those traditional australian

values must also always win out. now, not only has the australian economy benefited from the immigration of those from diverse backgrounds with great skills but our society has benefited from the cultures they brought with them and sustained in this new homeland. people come here not to change our values, mr. speaker, but because of them. because australia is a place you can practice your religion in freedom and tolerance because australia is a place of freedom and democracy. they come not to change that but because of that. now, mr. speaker, we on this side of the house are proud of what multiculturism has meant and continues to mean to australian lives. in introducing this new strategy last week, i noticed multiculturism is not the exclusive child of the labour party or the liberal party. i praised the prime minister who made it the policy as she paid

tribute to her predecessor. it's the responsibility of elected officials that the debate of immigration and multiculturalism that's handled maturely and most importantly honestly. it's incumbent on all political leaders to uphold the values of freedom of religion and respect. and any pandering to or encouragement of any prejudice in the community has no place in the australian political discourse. and, mr. speaker, let me say very clearly this government condemns in the strongest possible terms the statements like those in the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the opposition last friday. >> senator? >> who said and i quote islam itself is the problem. as i said earlier multiculturalism is the bases of democracy and freedom including freedom of religious expression. and any attack on any religion's tradition is the attack of any religion on any australian.

mr. speaker, it's important not only this sim condemns those remarks but that all members of this house condemn those remarks and that the leader of the opposition not only distance himself from those remarks but explicitly condemn the remarks of his own parliamentary secretary. mr. speaker, multiculturalism is on the tolerance. comments like the senator do a great disservice to the traditions of his party. mr. speaker, more importantly, they do a great disservice to this nation. >> here here. >> and there were the highlights of the last sitting of the australian parliament. i hope you can join us next month. ♪

>> right now you can listen to c-span signature programming on your mp3 player. there's a story of the day from c-span radio's washington today, the latest books and authors and "after words." people in the news on newsmakers and interesting conversation on q & a. listening to a variety of public affairs podcasts whenever you want. everything you need to know is online at c-span.org/podcasts. >> indiana senator dan coats was elected to office in november after having been retired from the senate for 12 years. he previously served as a senator from 1988 to 1998.

senator coats gave his first floor speech of this term known as the maiden speech on tuesday. this is 20 minutes. >> mr. president, returning to the senate is in many ways like having a chance to relive a part of your life and yet doing so with the benefit of experience, experience that i gained in serving in this body before and also from service in the private sector. and it allows you to see things differently than you saw them before. and while i discussed with my colleagues what is the same here in the senate on return, there's also much that has changed in our country and that i think when mandate change in this institution. it's what happens changed that has brought me back to the senate because the more that i witnessed what was happening to our country, the more i realized that i like the others across the country needed to re-engage

in some way or another in the task of returning our nation to its basic values and time-tested principles. the least of which, i think, is returning our federal government to one that ensures a healthy fiscal nation, whose finances and policies promote job opportunities for its citizens. i just could not get comfortable with the fact that my generation might be the first generation to turn over a country in worse fiscal shape and with less opportunity to our children than one that we had the privilege of inheriting. when i first came to congress in 198 warm-up, one of the very first votes that i had to deal with and it was a tough one -- it was to raise the national debt limit to the one just -- just over the $1 trillion mark. as our country prospered and grew, grew financially, we spent

into debt $1 trillion worth of debt. now, as a newly elected member in the house of representatives one of the things i wanted to do particularly having one on a campaign of limited government and trimming the size of government and spending to then make one of my very first votes one to raise the national debt to accommodate excessive spending. on the almost impossible to say no request of then the newly elected president ronald reagan who said we need to pay the past bills so that we can get to the job of cutting spending and cutting taxes and getting our country back on the right track economically. and so i gritted my teeth and swallowed hard and made that first vote. it is difficult for me today to comprehend that i'm standing here just 30 years later and we

are looking at a national debt of over $14.5 trillion. so in just 30 years we've gone from 1 trillion to 14.5 trillion. i cannot comprehend that number. i think very few americans can comprehend that number. but clearly one thing stands out and that is that this federal government has grown faster and much deeper into debt than any of us could have possibly imagined and over a very short period of time. we paid a steep and will pay an even steeper price tag for that debt. and it threatens our way of life as well as our nation's security. during the '90s the combination of economic growth, the defeat of the 1993 health care plan, president clinton's decision to move to the middle and support welfare reform all contributed to moving us toward a more sensible and fiscally responsible balance between revenue and spending.

in fact, in 1998, we actually reached a surplus of about $69 billion, the first surplus reached since the year 1969. that would have been the ideal time to lock in a balanced budget amendment to ensure and hold congress that we would not slip into back into deficit spending and that congress and the white house would be held accountable for future spending. you know, there were two serious attempts during the '90s both of which i supported to enact a balanced budget amendment. they failed each one by one vote. think today where we would be fiscally had we gotten that one vote and passed either one of those amendments and sent it to the states for ratification which i'm sure they would have done we would not be facing the dire fiscal situation that we face today. i have decided not to go into

the details of our exploding deficits and debt. much has already been said and published in that regard. much has been said on this floor and more will be said. but based on the last election, the american public is now much better informed of our current financial situation and the dangerous consequences of spending beyond our means. we have spent beyond our means in all areas of government. we have increased unfunded liabilities and we have committed to programs which we cannot afford or sustain. americans have heard the warnings of many who have analyzed our situation and sounded the alarm. and in 2010, said immediate action must be taken to avoid a national fiscal crisis of unprecedented negative consequences. what are those consequences? ultimately, those consequences are a lower standard of living. less income for families to take home to pay the mortgage, to buy that new car, to send their

children -- save money to send their children to school. those consequences have, unfortunately, over the past couple of years put our nation in a serious unemployment situation. people are out of work and they've been out of work for months if not years. ultimately, it all turns down to jobs. having the ability to bring home earnings that will sustain a family and provide opportunities for education, health, growth for those families and give our children and our grandchildren and all of those who follow us the opportunities that so many of us have enjoyed. those are the consequences we face if we don't today address these problems. many respected economists and financial experts have continued to issue dire warnings about our current fiscal condition and let me quote just a couple. the former staff of the president clinton and the

deficit reduction committee said this debt is like a cancer that will destroy the country from within unless washington acts. pete peterson, former u.s. secretary of commerce and u.s. executive said this about the national debt. we need to ask ourselves not just is this sustainable but is it moral? what does it mean to burden our children to an unconscionable doubling of their taxes? admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs of our military said, i believe our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. if we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near term, our national power will erode and the costs of our ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great. and finally u.s. former u.s. controller general david walker who served under both republican and democrat administrations have said and i quote, what

threatens the ship are large, known and growing structural deficits. habitually spending more money than you make is irresponsible. but that is exactly what washington has done. habitually spend sinking our fiscal ship deeper and deeper each year. we saw a drastic swing as i mentioned in november. hoosiers and americans are united together in a common purpose demanding that our newly elected representatives and all representatives repair our fiscal health that's of our fiscal policy. it's called for cable election to preserve our country for tomorrow. they realize that the stakes are too high to ignore or delay addressing our fiscal challenges. hoosier families and businesses local communities, states and virtually any other entity across indiana and across our

country have had to make sacrifices to trim their budgets. they are now calling for the federal government and for congress to do the same. but mr. president, we cannot succeed unless we together, republicans and democrats, agree that addressing our current fiscal crisis requires political courage and bold action from both parties, both chambers of congress and president obama. mr. president, i'd like to offer what i think are some solutions that i believe congress must execute perhaps in a coordinated way, essential steps if we are serious of addressing the financial challenge before us. first, stop the fiscal bleeding. and avoid economic distress by doing so. washington has to break its habit of spending our addiction.

it will take commitment. as we consider spending cuts and ways we can reverse the growth of government, i believe everything must be on the table. all functions of government should be examined including mandatory spending and defense spending. serious discussions and proposals are currently underway in this country. i'm participating in many of them. these proposals need to be considered carefully. they need to be debated and they need to be voted on. secondly, i think it's important that we recognize that spending cuts alone will not solve our fiscal challenges and preserve our future. we need to pare our cuts with a progrowth agenda that puts hoosiers and americans back to work. one of the ways congress can achieve this goal is by reforming the tax code. by lowering marginal rates, by lowering corporate rates to make us more competitive with our competitors around the world, by

eliminating exclusions and special interest deductions and credits and simplifying the complex and convoluted tax code, congress can help advance the economic recovery. this, i think, is the necessary element in the task of returning to fiscal health. i'm currently working on legislation on this very topic and hope to introduce it in coming weeks. third, washington needs to examine, reduce and in many cases eliminate harmful regulations and mandates. as i traveled across indiana perhaps one story that i've heard over and over and repeats itself with every business i participate with or engage with, the word is regulations coming out of washington -- many of which do not reflect the will of the people, the will of congress but are imposed by nonelected bureaucrats have put us at a disadvantage with our

competitors and have added additional burdens of paperwork and compliance to us and don't make sense from the health and safety standpoint. so oversight of proposals to address the regulatory burdens also need to be considered, debated and voted on by this congress. fourth, i think we need to promote trade policies. 6,000 businesses in indiana export overseas. one-fourth of all of our manufacturing jobs result in exports. so a good first step in all this process is to open our markets by approving the three pending trade agreements that we have, korea, colombia, and panama. this will increase job opportunities at home and this will put us on the path of continuing open trading that provides so many jobs to so many hoosiers and so many americans. mr. president, having said all this, the greatest threat to our fiscal security is the growing

and unsustainable mandatory spending. we cannot strengthen our country's financial health without addressing medicare and medicaid and social security. these programs consume nearly two-thirds of the federal budget and while we hear a lot of talk about the necessity of tackling entitlement spending little action occurs because it's often considered too politically dangerous. however, i believe we no longer have a choice. we no longer can defer addressing these problems until after the next election. entitlement crisis is before us and has been growing for several years. we know about the coming baby boom generation that's retiring and the impact it will put on these entitlement programs. and we have to commit, i believe, to finding a way to restructure these programs and make them solvent. let me repeat that. we're not here to undercut these programs. we're here to preserve those programs. we're here to make the necessary

structural long-term incremental changes so that those benefits will be there for people when they retire. as winston churchill once said one ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. if you do that, he said, you will double the danger. but if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you can reduce the danger at least by half. we have not met this promptly but i believe it's not too late to begin the process of making commonsense adjustments to the current systems, modest incremental changes now will help us avoid much more drastic and painful changes later. in 1983 the congress was faced with a serious social security crisis. we were months away from having checks not sent out. together president reagan, tip

o'neill, the majority and minority members of the senate and the house and the political leaders of the respected parties gathered together and decided to put this issue and the solution to this issue above politics. and they did so. and it was a difficult debate and discussion but we made the changes. they were implemented on an incremental basis. social security brought 30 years of solvency on the basis of that decision. the sky did not fall. the economy did not collapse and the people, when they learned why we were doing what we were doing, to preserve the program, not leave it in the dire situation where benefits would have to be cut or reduced dramatically, they backed what we did and supported. i believe we're in that position now with our entitlements. so if we can propose sensible modest changes that will save these programs, i think the public will gladly support that.

mr. president, over the last decade we have watched the storm clouds gather. and we've watched as those fiscal clouds have drawn ever closer and become ever darker. they are now bearing down upon us and alarms are sounding louder than ever. as i have said, it is incumbent upon each of us in this congress to acknowledge that the storm is here. and to do all we can to mitigate the damage. but given the current division of authority in our congress and executive branch, it is incumbent upon the two chambers and the two parties to succeed if we're going to set aside -- if we're going to address this current situation. it's incumbent if we -- to succeed that we will need to set aside the politics of 2012 for the future of our nation.

and i believe the voters will respond favorably to that decision. however, no matter what we do as elected representatives we cannot ultimately succeed without the engagement and the support and the leadership of the president of the united states. we know that the president understands the gravity of the fiscal crisis. as a former senator, as a presidential candidate and now as commander in chief, he has clearly articulated his understanding of the issue. in 2006, then senator obama said, and i quote, increasing america's debt we can adjust domestically and internationally. leadership means that the buck stops here. instead, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. those are the words of former senator barack obama, now

president of the united states. as a candidate for president in 2008, president obama said we're going to have to take on entitlements and i think we've got to do it quickly. and in 2009, then president obama said, what we have done is kicked this can down the road. we are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. he also promised his administration would, quote, work with congress to execute serious entitlement reform. now, president obama, as both republicans and more and more democrat members of congress are committing to go forward and as republican and democrat governors in states in fiscal peril are responding, our nation, mr. president, our nation needs you now, to assume the primary leadership role in helping us avert these financial

problems and potential financial meltdowns. the 2012 election must be subordinate to the urgency of the challenge before us. we cannot afford to wait until 2013 to begin the necessary work to prevent a fiscal disaster. we need presidential leadership now. our country's future is at stake. given the immensity of our fiscal challenges that we face today, some would say it's too late to remedy the problem. i do not hold that view. and i don't hold that view partly because and primarily because of our nation's history in rising to the challenge that faces us. from the founding fathers to george washington, from abraham lincoln to roosevelt, times of trials have always produced moments in great leadership and the response of the american people to support that leadership. and that is what americans are

yearning for today. leadership. leadership to guide us out of this dangerous financial hold that threatens our nation's security and future. so i ask our president, as other presidents throughout our history have done in times of major threats, mr. president, grant us your leadership. grant us the leadership needed to restore the strength and prosperity that has been the american story and has allowed our nation to be the defenders and protectors of democracy and freedom. 30 years ago ronald reagan delivered his first inaugural address and expressed the urgent need to rein in spending, incur the size and growth of the federal government. he said, doing so will require our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to form great deeds. to believe that together with god's help, we can and we will

resolve the problems that confront us. for each of us serving here today, i believe it is our duty to rise to the immediate challenge and resolve the problems which now confront us. it will take all of us uniting behind a common purpose that above all else, we must first restore and strengthen our fiscal security. we must articulate a clear vision, set specific goals and make the tough decisions needed to bring our nation out of debt and preserve prosperity and opportunity for future generations. i'm here today to commit to hoosiers, to my colleagues, to my children and grandchildren, to all our nation's children and grandchildren that i will not turn my back on our economic dangers or seek the false safety of political denial. i'm standing here today to find

solutions, to make the hard decisions and leave behind a country that is stronger and more fiscally secure for future generations. this crisis is not insurmountable. we can overcome it by doing what great generations before us have done. mustering our will to do what's right. if we do, i know that america's greatest days are not behind us but in the days before. mr. president i yield the floor. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. the day starting with about an hour of general speeches and then in about a half hour, actually about an hour, senators will resume work on continuing programs to provide innovation funds for small high tech and research firms. they'll vote on two amendments one supporting a 5% cut in the senate budget. another eliminating the federal charter for the veterans business development corporation and a number of other amendments are pending. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. we pray in your sacred name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 16, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 10:30. p senators permitted to speak up

to 10 minutes each during that period of time. majority will control the first half the republicans the second half. following that, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493, the small business jobs bill. senators should expect two roll call votes at 10:30 this morning. those votes will be in relation to nelson of nebraska, regard a sense of the senate resolution to reduce the senate's budget by 5% and a snowe-landrieu amendment striking the federal authorization. relations -- more roll call votes are expected during today's session of the senate. at 12:00 noon senator bloo bloo- blumenthal will deliver his maiden speech. i am told, madam president that h.j. res. 48 is at the desk and

due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.j. res. 48, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. objection having been heard. the joint resolution will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: no one can count the number of times this chamber has heard calls for compromise. the call has come from senators of good faith from every era from senators both democrat and republican. it is the essence of the legislative branch designed to run on consensus as designed by our founding fathers. as senators we search for the right arguments and right incentives to strike the right balance, a balance that will let the senate and the country move forward. but there's no stronger argument for bipartisan than the series

of budget votes over the past few days. last week the senate voted on two proposals, one written by republicans and one written by democrats. some democrats voted against the republican bill and some republicans voted against the democratic bill. last week there was a vote on a republican bill. some democrats voted to the other party's plan. this time it passed. but only because it had bipartisan support. we don't know what will happen when that same question comes before the senate this week. but we know we won't see a strictly party line vote. less is obvious. neither party can pass a bill without the other party an neither chamber can send that bill to the president without the other chamber. if we're look for a key study and why cooperation is necessary, that's as clear as it comes. it's just as obvious that we cannot meet in the milled in one side refuse to give any ground.

both parties in both houses must be willing to work together. we cannot negotiate without a partner on the other side of the table and we will not find a solution in stubbornness. i will repeat the request i made since the beginning of the budget debate, this request for reasonableness, it is the same call for compromise and consensus that always kept this diverse nation moving forward. it's the same appeal made by one of the great senators in the history of this country, a senator the senator at the seat now holds, that all legislation is found on mutual concession. the great senator clay said, all legislation is founded on the principle of mutual concession. if the senate and house cannot pass a long-term budget, that keeps the country open for business, another reality will be made to the american people. it will be crystal clear which party was willing to work toward a common goal and which party

lacked a courage -- the courage to compromise. will the chair announce morning business. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permit to speak for 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i take this time to reap flect with my -- to reflect with my colleagues that we celebrate today, the one-year anniversary of the passage of the affordable care act and to reflect on how much has happened to improve health care in america since the passage of the affordable care act. and we have reason to celebrate. if you are a senior in the medicare program and you now know that you can see your doctor or your primary care

doctor every year for an annual wellness exam and that wellness exam will now be covered under medicare so you have an opportunity to meet with your doctor and take charge of your own health, you have a reason to celebrate the passage of the affordable care act. if you're a senior that happens to fall within the coverage gap under the prescription drug benefits in medicare, the so-called doughnut hole, and you've been forced at times to leave prescriptions on the calendar of the drug store because you couldn't afford to pay the cost of the prescriptions, and you now know that there is coverage in medicare if you fall within that gap. for last year seniors, 3.2 million of them, who fell within the gap, received a $250 check. this year the seniors that fall within this coverage gap will receive a 50% discount on their

brand named drugs. next year their benefit will be worth as much as $2,400. and by 2020 we will close the gap entirely all as a result of the passage of the affordable care act, you have reason to celebrate that congress finally got the job done. and if you are an american family, like many, and you celebrate your child's graduation from college only to find out that your child could no longer be covered under your health insurance policy because of the age restrictions, and now you learn that congress has changed that age to 26 so that you can keep your youngster under your family insurance program and that child now has health insurance and you're one of 1.2 million people who benefit from this provision that was in the affordable care act,

you have reason to celebrate the passage of the affordable care act. madam president, if you are a smawp owner -- if you are a small business owner who can now afford to cover your employees because of the tax credit in the affordable care act, four million institutions will be e eligible for that tax credit. soon you will be able to get competitive rates, small businesses pay 20% more for the same coverage as large companies, but congress took action last year to eliminate that disparity. if you are one of those small business owners who are now benefiting from that tax credit or who will benefit from better rates and better choice, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the affordable care act. or if you happen to be a consumer of health insurance, as

almost all of us are, and you want value for your premium dollar, you now know as passage of the affordable care act the lion share of your premiums muss must go for health benefits, reining in the insurance companies and you now know that congress has taken action to prevent the abusive practices of private insurance companies, you have reason to celebrate the passage or if you happen -- in the mountain of west virginia and fell off of a cliff and and flown to the closest emergency room to receive care, was denied coverage because he did not call ahead for preauthorization, tough a reason

to celebrate the enactment of the affordable care act. yes, insurance companies denied coverage for emergency care because of requirements for preauthorization or they are denied coverage because of the ultimate diagnosis did not meet their standard for reimbursement even though their symptoms indicated that you should seek emergency care. i started working on that issue in 1995 known as the prudent lay person standards for requiring insurance companies to reimburse their policyholders for visits to an emergency room where their symptoms indicated that they should go to the emergency room. in 1997, medicare and medicaid were changed in order to provide for the prudent layperson's standard for reimbursement. well, now, all insurance companies must comply with that

standard because of the passage of the affordable care act. or if you're a parent who has a child who has asthma or have been told that the insurance company won't provide full coverage because of your child's pre-existing condition and now you can get full coverage for your child, you, too, have a reason to celebrate the passage of the affordable care act, and if you're an adult and have been told you cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions such as high blood pressure or you happen to be like a couple from montgomery county, maryland, who had to get two separate insurance policies because of pre-existing conditions, paying two separate premiums and two separate deductibles, and now you know you can get one insurance plan that will cover your family, you have a reason to celebrate because that, too, was corrected

by the affordable care act that was passed by congress one year ago. or if you happen to be a taxpayer who is concerned about the fiscal soundness of medicare or the budget deficit, you, too, have a reason to celebrate the enactment of the affordable care act, because the affordable care act extended the solvency of the medicare system by 12 years, putting it on a safer basis, making it less vulnerable for our budget. and the enactment of the affordable care act reduced the federal budget deficit by over over $100 billion during the first ten years and over over $1.5 trillion during the next -- during the first 20 years. this is because, quite frankly, madam president, this bill manages illnesses much more

cost-effectively, it uses health information technology more effectively, it invests in wellness and it brings down the cost. that's not what this senator is saying has. it has been established what the congressional budget office has told us will bring in savings on our deficit. so taxpayers have a reason to celebrate the enactment of the affordable care act. one other reason to celebrate the year anniversary of the enactment of this legislation, let me give you one more example, madam president. several weeks ago i was at the greater baden health center, located about seven or eight miles from where we are today. they are doing something about the infant mortality rate in our community. we have too high of an infant mortality rate because of low birth weight babies. some don't survive and become part of our infant mortality

numbers in america, where we are much higher than we should be. others survive and have complications that need to be addressed by our health care system, making it challenging for the infant and expensive for our society. well, at the greater baden health center, they're doing something about that. they are expanding their qualified health center to include prenatal care so pregnant women can get the type of attention they need to have healthy babies. that money comes from the affordable care act because of the expansion of our qualified health centers. we all celebrate what we're able to accomplish. it will keep our children healthier and save us money and have less use of the emergency rooms by expanding care at our qualified centers. and madam president, if you're concerned about health disparities in america -- and you have reason to be -- minorities are two times more

likely to suffer from diabetes, 33% more likely to die from heart disease. in the african-american community, the infant mortality rate is 2.3 times higher than the white community. when we look at the number of people that have access to health care and health insurance, the minority population represents one-third, yet they are one half of the people that don't have health insurance. i think we all agree that we need to do something about that. that's just not right in our sense of fairness. but let me just give you one more reason it will save us money. a study done at johns hopkins university and the university of maryland point out that we can save $260 billion, $260 billion in excess direct medical care costs if we can deal with the minority health disparities.

now, we had done something about that in the affordable care act. an amendment that i was proud to introduce established the institute for minority health and health disparities within the national institutes of health, and we have developed minority health and disparity offices in each of our agencies that deal with health care, that do something about health disparities in america. we can all celebrate that we're able to move that forward in the affordable care act. madam president, we should all take pride that america at long last, after decades of unsuccessful attempts, has acted and health care today will be -- the health care is a right, not a privilege. no longer as our dear friend, the late senator kennedy said, we no longer have a sick care system, we have taken action to include all under health care in america.

now, i understand that the republicans in the house want to repeal each and every one of these improvements and accomplishments, and they offer no hope of taking these issues up in a serious manner during this congress. speaking on behalf of our seniors, speaking on behalf of our small business owners, speaking on behalf of the consumers of health insurance in america, speaking on behalf of what is right as far as covering and making sure everyone has access to affordable care, we don't want to see that happen. we don't want to move backwards. we have reason to celebrate the accomplishments of moving forward with health care. we want to move forward, not back, and continue to build upon an american health care system that provides affordable, quality care to all americans. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: test.

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the

minority leader. mr. mcconnell: ski that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, the rising cost of gasoline has become a major concern for most americans. with prices in most states moving closer and closer to $4 a gallon and already higher in some areas, americans have a right to know where the president and the democrats in congress stand on the issue. so let me just begin this morning with a simple observation that it's no accident that gas prices are skyrocketing at a time when democrats control two-thirds of official washington. it's no secret that democratic leaders in washington don't particularly care for this issue. ask them about gas prices and chances are they will tell you about some car they plan to build and have ready for production about 25 years down the road. suggest that we tap some of our own domestic sources of oil and they will give you 101 reasons why we can't and how that's not a real solution anyway because it will take too long to get it out of the ground.

we have been having that particular argument for decades now, literally for decades. and then they have the audacity to step in front of the cameras and tell us they are all for reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil with what? windmills? it's time to be serious about a serious problem. the fact is there's no reason in the world we can't invest in future technologies at the same time that we're tapping into the resources we already have right here at home and creating jobs while we do it. the democrats don't seem to like that idea. they would rather force a change in behavior now than give struggling american families the relief they need from the rising gas prices. don't listen to what they say on the issue. watch what they do. well, here's what they have done. over the past two years, the obama administration has delayed, revoked, suspended or canceled an enormous range of

development opportunities. one month after the president took office, his administration canceled 77 oil and gas leases in utah. once the review was complete, the administration refused to reinstate even a single one. a month after that, the administration's -- the administration shortened lease terms for offshore oil and gas production and raised fees for permit applications. last january, it announced new restrictions for onshore oil and gas exploration in the mountain west. last february, it denied a permit to build a bridge needed to access an oil-producing field in alaska after the environmental protection agency designated a nearby river an aquatic resource of national importance. last april, the administration suspended 61 oil and gas leases in montana that were issued in 2008, then announced that all oil and gas leases in montana,

north dakota and south dakota would be delayed indefinitely. last may, the president announced a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, a moratorium that has been repeatedly struck down in the courts. the list of actions like these goes on and on and on. and that's to say nothing of the proposed new environmental protection agency regulations on energy that would either cause oil refineries to pass along their resulting new production cost to consumers at the pump or drive them and their jobs overseas. so let there be no doubt, the white house efforts are costing jobs and putting even more pressure on gas prices and paying lip service to the public's concerns won't solve the problem. by unlocking our own sources of energy here at home, that would help immensely. just to give you an idea of the kind of resources we have right here at home, consider that just

one 2,000-acre section of the nonwilderness sections of the arctic national wildlife refuge, along with the chukchi and beaufort seas have enough recoverable oil to replace crude imports from the persian gulf for nearly 65 years. 65 years. so the problem isn't that we need to look elsewhere for energy. the problem is that democrats in washington won't let us use it. the problem is that even with gas prices on the rise, they want to tax it even more. so let's make this really simple, madam president. i'm going to propose just two concrete, practical things we can do in washington to give the american people some relief: create jobs and help make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. two ideas that would have wide

bipartisan support. let's increase american energy production, and let's block any new regulations that will drive up the production costs for energy. two ideas that will create jobs and alleviate the increasing pressure on gas prices. let's leave the ideology aside and do some practical good for americans who are struggling out there. let's increase american production of energy with american jobs and stop the job-stifling regulations. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, we're all facing the challenge of gasoline prices, adding a new burden to family budgeting as well as small businesses and large businesses alike couldn't come at a worse time in light of our recession and unemployment, but it is important for us to put in perspective where we are today and how we should resolve this issue. when you look at the entire known reserves of oil and gas in the world, in the entire world, the united states has 3%, 3%. and each year, the united states consumes 25% of the energy that is used in the world. so when i hear my colleagues on the other side come to the floor and say we can drill our way out

of this, i say to them that is unrealistic and doesn't reflect the reality of what we face today. yes, we should have responsible drilling for oil and gas. we should be sensitive to the environment to avoid the kind of hazards and accidents we saw in the gulf of mexico, to protect that part of america and part of the world that we believe should be preserved for future generations. but the notion if we could start drilling more, our problems will go away is not only naive, it is wrong, just flat out wrong. we heard the chants of drill, baby, drill a year and a half ago in the course of the president's campaign. it is not the answer to the energy policy ever. we still import a billion dollars of oil a day into the united states. it's an indication of our depends on foreign oil that any interruption in the middle east or other sources is going to raise our prices. what should we do about it? several things. first, on the immediate agenda,

we should look at the strategic petroleum reserve. friday the president said he was thinking of releasing oil to bring down prices an keep the economy moving forward. i support that. secondly we have to look at ways that the current oil pricing is really being gained by some financeers and speculators. from my point of view, this is something that needs to be not only examined, but stopped. this speculation runs prices up too highway too fast. third, look at the top five oil companies themselves, the top five are extremely profitable and in the midst of crises, they make even more money. that's the reality. and step back and look at our national energy policy. how do we encourage the use of more efficient cars and trucks? well, we don't do it by entertaining the amendment by the republican leader in the

senate. he says that the environmental protection agency should step back from even encouraging the kind of fuel efficiency in cars and trucks which we dues our dependence on foreign oil and reduce pollution in the atmosphere. that is a step backwards in the past. it is a rejection of basic science. so when the republican leader comes to the floor and gives his prescription for today's energy challenge in america, i would say him to, the patient's not going to get well, senator, with your prescription. we have to have a coordinated energy policy moving toward fuel efficiency, reducing the use of energy and still fueling our economy. renewable and sustainable sources of energy that don't pollute the atmosphere. the senator from kentucky, who was giving us a speech this morning about energy, actually has an amendment that he's preparing for the floor here which removes the right of the environmental protection agency to even deal with greenhouse gas

emissions as they affect climate change and the world we live in. it is stick your head in the sand approach to an issue which future generations will look back on and say, what were they thinking that they would ignore the reality of climate change in the world and the reality of what pollution is doing to our lungs, our health, our future. it's a reality that's being rejected by the republican side of the aisle. i might also say, madam president, i ask how much time is remaining in morning business. the presiding officer: four minutes on the majority side. mr. durbin: thank you very much. madam president, this is a one-year anniversary of the president signing the health care reform, and i am happy to stand here today and say that it represents one of the most important pieces of legislation in decades. for too long we let our nation's health care crisis grow and ignored it. people who said let the market work its will has to be honest

about what the market did. the market started excluding people who had preexisting conditions, and who among us doesn't? the market started charging higher and higher prices for health insurance and the market, unfortunately, was under controllable. we tried to deal with it to bring pricing under control and deal with the realities that families face across america. when i was in the most heated debate about the health care bill with tea party in front of my office in springfield, let he tell you about the stories in illinois. and someone said, stop telling stories. we don't want to hear stories. the stories are the reason we did this. those stories represent real lives. let me tell you one of those stories here representing a family that comes from east peoria illinois. this is jim, jill and rick.

they have two sons, sam and nate. they are 12 and 14 and have severe heap hemophila. thanks to injections they receive they're able to live healthy lives. that costs $250,000 per child per year. for years the family lived in fear that they would reach the lifetime limit of their insurance plan. that was the reality. many of these plans had a ceiling that paid no more beyond a certain amount. it happened to them in 2005. the hospital where rick works as an m.r.i. technician instituted a $2 million lifetime cap on benefits. for most families, that wouldn't even be an issue. but for the lathrops, who know that their annual medical expenses will always total hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep their boys alive, this

was. >> dave: alive -- this was devastating. lathropss moved to peoria to find insurance without lifetime limits. he changed jobs to find an insurance policy that would keep his boys alive. for many years, rick and jill held their breath when the open enrollment for their health insurance plan rolled around. they waited on edge to see if their insurance would once again institute an annual or lifetime limit on care that would force them to move again to assure adequate coverage for their sons. now, thanks to the bill we passed last year, insurance companies can no longer place lifetime limits on your care. think about what that means to this family that picked up and moved and looked for a new job, looking for new health insurance to keep their boys alive. is that what america should be? i think not. now, let me be very blunt about this. as good as this law was, it was not perfect. they are things that need to be addressed, examined, and changed.

i've said before and say again, the only perfect law was written on stone tablets, carried down a mountain by senator moses. everybody else has been trying and hasn't quite hit that standard. so let's be humble about this and open to change, but let's not repeal this, as the republicans have called for timetime andagain. let's not say to the lathrops family, sorry, you're on the own, and if another lifetime limit comes along it may literally endanger the lives of these two beautiful little blue-eyed boys. that's what this debate's about. it's a story about a real family and that's why the other side hates to hear these stories. because the stories literally explain why stepping backwards in time and repealing health care is exactly the wrong thing for america. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, may i ask that the quorum call be dismissed? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brass sew: thank you, madam president -- mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, we are just about a year to the day from the day that the president signed into law the health care law that is going to have an impact on all of the people of this country. here we are a year later and we

know a lot more about this law. people all around the country know a lot more about this law. and i spent part of the weekend visiting the folks in buffalo, wyoming, and attending the buffalo health fair. now, a health fair is a place where people in the community get together, they get their blood tested ahead of time, very inexpensive, it's based on prevention, early detection, things that this health care law were supposed to address but again, this health care law has failed miserably. and at the health fair, i talked to people getting their blood results back, checking their cholesterol, checking their blood sugars to see if they had diabetes, checking their thyroid levels. and as these people were getting think blood tested, and many, many people, probably half of buffalo turned out to have their blood tested, they started asking me questions about the health care law and the kind of questions that, you know, any american would be concerned about. am i going to lose my freedoms?

am i going to still be able to keep my doctor? will it really to get the -- truly get the cost of my care down? and regrettably, madam president, this health care law, now a year since it's been signed, turns out it's going to be actually bad for patients, bad for providers -- the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients -- and bad for payers, the taxpayers, the people that are going to be left footing the bill. because we know a lot more now, a year after the law has been passed, than we did when it was passed. un, people remember this -- you know, people remember this as the law that was crammed through the senate in the dead of night, written behind closed doors, all the unseemly bargains that were cut to convince senators to vote for it, getting by on the barest number of vot votes. things like the cornhusker kickback, the louisiana purchase, the sort of things that offended people all across this country. so people are upsweat this health care law -- upset with this health care law, one, in the way it was passed,

despite the fact that the president promised it would be seen on c-span, all the discussed were held behind closed doors, and despite the fact that many americans never had a chance to read this 2,700-page law. and, you know, madam president, when the president made his initial speech about what he was aiming to accomplish in health care, i said that would be great. i'm an orthopedic surgeon, practiced medicine for 25 years. i think we need to do the sorts of things that the president initially addressed. unfortunately, the health care law went in the opposite direction. when people worked their way through the 2,700-page bail, they found -- bill, they found that instead of lowering the cost of their care, the cost of their care was going to go up. instead of allowing people to keep the doctor that they wanted, they were going to have to unfortunately change in that situation. and that's why i've been coming to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about this health care law. so here we are a year later. we know that the cost of health care is going up.

the president said that health care premiums would lower for families by $2,500. no family has seen that, madam president. none that i know. none that i've talked to in wyoming. not one. peoplinstead, people have seen e cost of their health insurance going up, not down. the president said, well, he's never going to raise taxes, and then, in fact, there are a lot of tax increases as part of this health care law. even the 1099 form that senator johanns has championed on the part of small businesses around the country, the effort to remove these onerous obligations on our small businesses, have nothing to do with health care. boy, that got crammed into this bill in the dead of night so that -- so that those who support the bill can claim that -- that it was going to lower the cost. and even the congressional budget office admits that costs are going up, not down. this is absolutely impacting jobs. you know, the president promised that there would be efforts for

small businesses to have some advantages and some tax credits and some help. what we found out is, if you have a small business with ten employees and it goes to 11, you're going to lose some of those benefits. if you're paying your employees an average of $25,000 a year and you want to give them a raise, you start losing some of the -- some of the benefits. so in spite of the fact that the president had 4 million postcards sent out to small business owners, very few of them have been able to take advantage of what was promised to them. and now here we are where additional waivers are being given. we're at a point where over 2.5 million americans have been given waivers from participating in the health care law. and interestingly enough, these are the very people, for the most part -- a significant number -- who lobbied for the bill. once they found out what was in it, they said, no, i don't want this to apply to me.

and now we see that the state of maine, the entire state of maine has been given a waiver. well, madam president, i come to the floor today, a year after this has passed into law, and i say everybody in the country ought to be able to get a waiver, an opt-out of this health care law, opt out completely. these are decisions that should be made at the state level, at the local level. washington's one-size-fits-all has hardly ever worked for anything and it sure doesn't work for health care. so in wyoming, at the wyoming health fair in buffalo, as i visited with people, talked to them, you know what they're worried about? they're worried about losing their freedoms, losing their choice, losing their doctor, losing the health care plan that they like. in spite of the president's promises, we know that about 80% of people who get their health insurance through small businesses are not going to be able to keep the health care that they like. why? because of government mandates.

government has said, no, no, we know what's best for you. you don't. we do. the government says, we know what's best for your family. the government doesn't know what's best. these ought to be local decisions, and that's why senator lindsey graham and i and a number of cosponsors have introduced legislation to allow states to opt out of this health care law, opt out of the individual mandate, the requirement that forces americans to buy government-approved insurance. let states make that decision if people in their own state need to live under those laws. let states decide if -- if individuals, if people who ar are -- the employers, the people that are the job creators in our communities, if they have to supply government-approved insurance to the people that live there. let people make decisions at the local level, and then you can lift any newspaper and take a look at what the medicaid mandates are doing to our states and doing to the budgets of the states.

states like wyoming, where we balance our budget every year, live within our means, are being crushed by these medicaid mandates. but it's not just small states like wyoming in terms of population. california, new york, states all across the country are saying to this -- this body, let us out, let us opt out. we can't live under these mandates. but the president's solution is to cram more people on to medicaid, a program that doesn't work, where many doctors won't see these patients, where the reimbursements are so low, hospitals say we can't afford to see these patients because of the impact it will have. you know, even the -- the actuaries, the people that look at this, the fair and appropriate way to look at the numbers say 15% of the hospitals in this country ten years from now may not be able to b be open because of the way that this health care law is going. that's not going to provide more access.

it's providing less access. and why have seniors rejected this so overwhelmingly? seniors have looked at this and they see $500 billion in medicare cuts. and things like medicare advantage. and there's an advantage to income that program. that's why one out of four seniors have set up that progr program. and have chosen that program. it's because they want choice. and this health care law is one that is taking choice out of the hands of the american families, taking the freedoms out of the american families' hands, and it is something that i continue to hear from the people in wyoming and the people across the country we need to repeal and reneed to replace with commonsense solutions of allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. make that legal to do that. to -- to allow small businesses to pool their resources togeth together, to give incentives for individuals who go to something like the wyoming health fair and work on prevention and early detection of problems. give those people the opportunity to make individual

choices. expand health savings accounts. those are sorts of things that we can deal with in a responsible way to help american families get the care that they want from the doctor that they need at a price they can afford. that's all the american people are asking for: the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford. and they are not getting it under this health care law. it's now been enacted for a full year. the american people know the truth. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, i rise today to also speak about the health care bill. the first anniversary of any new law should be a time of celebration, one would think. the mood surrounding this bill, though, this health care law, is much different. one year later, americans are

demanding as loudly as he have that we repeal it, and it's not surprising considering the almost constant flow of bad news and broken promises and higher costs and skyrocketing health insurance premiums. we didn't need a year of bad news and broken promises to see this was bad policy. it was fraught with problems from the very moment it hit the senate floor. many of us came down to the floor and pointed out the inevitable problems with the legislation. warned how this law was predicated on faulty accounting that would exacerbate our current and future fiscal problems. it's certainly irresponsible. it's shortsighted to argue that legislation will reduce the debt when it's filled with so many budget gimmicks, but that's exactly what congress did when passing this legislation and now all across this great nation people are paying the price.

the administration now admits that the funding elements of this law did not add up. for example in testimony before the finance committee, h.h.s., secretary sebelius described the newly created class act entitlement as -- quote -- "totally unsustainable." furthermore in recent testimony secretary sebelius was asked whether the medicare cuts in the law are used to save medicare or to pay for the health care law. remarkably she responded, both. well, even a child knows that you can't spend a dollar on a new toy and then use the same dollar to buy a candy bar. it's wonder full accounting and even -- it's wonderland accounting, and even the administration's own medicare actuary seems to agree. he said, the medicare reductions

in the law -- quote -- "cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays such as coverage expansions and to further the trust fund." unquote. you see double counting this money is absolutely illogical and the american people saw through the smoke screen long ago. but the fiscal problems with the legislation are only the half of it. as a former governor, i shared my concern that putting 16 million people into a very, very broken medicaid system was a fatal flaw of the law. medicaid beneficiaries already have huge problems in finding a doctor. nationwide 40% of doctors will not see medicaid patients. the medicaid expansion is like giving someone a free bus ticket and then taking the bus away. but instead of addressing this problem, the law complicates the

problem by doubling the number of people on the broken system medicaid. if you've got an airplane that's already overweight, why would you load it up with more weight? but even if you overlook the access nightmares created by the expansion, well, the bottom line is our broken states cannot afford this legislation. states are struggling to pay their bills and now we are leaping more obligations on -- heaping more obligation on them. as a former governor, it breaks my heart that we are making those problems even greater. that's why cash-strapped states are begging for relief from the crushing medicaid mandate that is steamrolling their way. one did not have to be a fortune teller to predict the budgetary panic spreading from one state

capital to another state capital. and for what benefit? one year later many of the promises that were used to sell this law used over and over again, well, they've been debunked. for example, remember the president saying and i'm quoting here, "if you like your plan, you can keep it." unquote. well, it turns out that's not exactly accurate. again, the administration's own medicare actuary concluded that the president's promise is -- quote -- "not true in all cases." unquote. it turns out that the truth seems to be more of an exception. one of the administration's own estimates projects as many as 80% of small businesses being forced to give up their current coverage within two years, 80%. remember the president promising that he would not sign into law

any legislation that did not bring down the cost curve? in june 2009, president obama claimed that any health care legislation he would sign must role costs. he said, and i'm quoting from the president, "if any bill arrives from congress that is not controlling cost, that is not a bill i can support. it's going to have to control cost." unquote, the president said. one is left to wonder why the president signed this law since his own actuaries estimated it would increase federal health care spending by $310 billion. and earlier this month the medicare actuary provided, again, with a moment of sad truth. he testified that president obama's promise that the health care law would lower costs was -- quote -- "false more so than

true." unquote. that's astonishing. absolutely astonishing. remember how the president promised that the health care law would bring down the cost of insurance premiums? as a presidential candidate, president obama promised no fewer than 20 times that he would cut premiums by $2,500 for the average family by the end of his first term. yet, the average family's health insurance premium has risen b by $1,100 per family since he took office. a recent "new york times" office highlighted the missed opportunity -- quote -- "groups of 20 or more workers have been experiencing premium increases of around 20% insurance agents say while smaller groups are seeing increases of 40% to 60%."

unquote. finally the first year of implementing this law provides clear evidence that the administration does not think this health care law is actually good for everyone. the administration has now granted over 1,000 waivers to certain states, employers, unions, insurance companies allowing them to be exempt from several of the mandates. the plans approved for waivers cover nearly three million individuals. well, if the law's so popular, if it's so beneficial, why are we exempting three million people while the other 300 million have to live with higher premiums and more mandates. -- mandates? this and many other questions have yet to be answered by this administration, however, the president's recent budget does outline his game plan to advance the flawed policy. the current strategy is spend

more taxpayer dollars to continue to try to convince a skeptical public that the health care law is really good policy and, number two, if they don't agree, use an enforcement hammer to make sure that they follow and ensure compliance. buried within the president's budget is a request for not better health care, a 315% increase for the public affairs office at the department of health and human services. one of the primary tasks of the public affairs office is to sell the health care reform. furthermore, they've requested 1,270 new internal revenue service agents to implement the law and enforce the mandate. while speaker pelosi may have been advocating passing bill so we can learn what was in it, many americans weren't so naive. they understood exactly what was in it.

they understood you can't spend a dollar twice. they understood that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is, and they know that when someone shows up from the government offering a carrot, you better look for the stick. last year to craft health care policy on a bipartisan basis was squandered. this missed opportunity will continue to haunt us. unfortunately i worry that the second year under this oppressive piece of policy isn't going to be a bit better than the first. it's regrettable that we've reached this point, but, of course, we were warned. so this occasion, this solemn first anniversary to double our efforts to right the wrong, we will work to wipe this misguided law from the books to protect the rights of americans to choose their doctor, select

their insurance, and trust in their own good judgment. many are committed to the cause. i believe it will happen. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 17, s. 493, a bill to re-authorize and improve the sbir and sttr programs, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 182 offered by the senator from nebraska, mr. nelson. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: i rise to speak on my amendment proposing a sense of the senate agreement to cut the senate's budget by at least 5%. when i go home every weekend,

people come up to me at the grocery store, hardware store and elsewhere, and they tell me they are concerned about our national debt and deficit. they want washington to cut spending and bring down the cloud of debt that hangs over our economic environment. as chairman of the senate appropriations legislative branch subcommittee, i have been pursuing a 5% cut in this year's budget for congress and agencies and offices on capitol hill. we can cut -- we cut this budget a year ago, we're cutting it this year, and we'll be back for further cuts next year. my amendment says that as congress pursues comprehensive debt reduction while conducting major military action on two fronts all in the midst of a fragile economic recovery, congress still shouldn't be exempt from the pain. fiscal restraint starts at home and with our own budget. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i rise to agree with my colleague from nebraska, to support his amendment and to congratulate him for his newfound enthusiasm for this

idea. actually, on january 10, the house of representatives passed a rule to reduce its spending by 5%. this measure was passed on a roll call vote of 410-13. soon thereafter, i was the first senator to call on my colleagues in the senate to cut their office expenditures by 5%. this small but symbolic step could save the taxpayers over $20 million. on february 4, some six weeks ago, i requested unanimous consent to take up a sense of the senate resolution i authored urging all senators to take such action. unfortunately, at that time and since then, there has been objection from the other side of the aisle to this unanimous consent request. my effort was bipartisan. i was joined by 14 of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, and i thank them. we now have an agreement to take up my sense of the senate resolution by unanimous consent later in the day, so as to expedite and refine enactment of

provisions of the nelson amendment based on that understanding. i commend the senator from nebraska for coming to this idea what late but support his amendment nonetheless and thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: is there any time remaining on our side? the presiding officer: there is no time remaining. ms. landrieu: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change your vote? if not, the ayes are 98, the nays are 1. the amendment is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 183, offered by the senator from maine, ms. snowe. can the chamber come to order, please. the senator from maine. ms. snowe: thank you, madam president. this amendment is a bipartisan amendment supported by chair landrieu, senator coburn -- the presiding officer: would the gentlewoman suspend. can we have order in the chamber, please. can the conversations in -- on the floor please cease.

can the conversations on the floor please cease. ms. snowe: thank you, madam president. this is a bipartisan amendment supported by chair landrieu, the former chair of the committee, senator kerry, senator coburn, and senator webb. basically, this is -- this amendment is based on a report that was conducted by the small business committee back in 2008 when senator kerry was chair of the committee and we both requested an investigation into the veterans development corporation and found egregious mismanagement. the presiding officer: will the senator pliewz suspend. the chamber -- will the senator please suspend. the chamber is not in order. will the senators please suspend their conversations. the senator from maine. ms. snowe: thank you again, madam president. this amendment is based on a report that was conducted by the small business committee in 2008 about the veterans development corporation that was engaged in

mismanagement, misuse of taxpayers' money, and not abiding by the statutory obligations. and there was a very detailed report in which they used -- misused hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. they do not receive any additional appropriations obviously now, but we want to remove them from federal statute is a that they don't have any federal linkage, any federal charter or any ability to use the offices of the federal government for any activities in the future. so i would urge stuart of this amendment -- support of this amendment. it's supported by the americans of foreign wars and the american legion at the time in which we discontinued the funding for this organization. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, if i could just a moment. i know people in washington don't believe and people in america believe that we can actually eliminate a program. we're getting ready to eliminate one now in a bipartisan fashion to cut funding and caught

program that has not worked. i just wanted to underline that we can most certainly do that in a bipartisan way. that is what this vote is about. i don't believe there's any opposition, so i yield back the remaining time. a senator: request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 99, the nays are 0. the motion is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is considered laid on the table. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent for a colloquy with the distinguished republican leader for three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i would say to my friend, the leader, and to all of my colleagues, it is of deep concern to the secretary of defense and to this member and

i'm sure many other members that we are defending this nation on a two-week to two-week basis, and it is harming our ability to defend this nation's national security, and i know we are probably now going to go into another three-week continuing resolution. is it the intention of the republican leader, along with myself and others, that we will not do another continuing resolution unless we take up a defense appropriations bill for the year? we can't do this to the men and women who are serving to deprive them of the equipment, the training and the wherewithal when we're in two wars, and it's vital in my view that we not allow another continuing resolution without addressing the defense appropriations bill, hopefully for -- and we should be for the remainder of the year. mr. mcconnell: i would say to my friend from arizona, he is entirely correct. i don't intend myself to support

another continuing resolution that does not contain the full-year defense appropriation bill. i think everybody understands the urgency of that. my friend from arizona, our leader, on these issues has been very clear and articulate about it, and i can say with total confidence that we're not -- the house and senate are not going to be passing another continuing resolution without the funding for the defense department for the remainder of this fiscal year. mr. mccain: i thank the republican leader and i thank my colleague from louisiana, and our -- i hope this message is transmitted to our friends and colleagues on the other side of the capitol that they shouldn't send over another c.r. without funding the defense department for the rest of the year. mr. mcconnell: i would just say to my friend from arizona, i believe his position is shared by the leadership of -- of our party in the house, and i think there is no chance that we will not complete work on the defense appropriation bill in the next few weeks. mr. mccain: thank you.

the senator from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, before i get into the business before us, which is sbir and sttr re-authorization, a very important small business program, let me just add a few thoughts to the colloquy of the senator from arizona and the minority leader had. i would most certainly support that view, and there may be others on the democratic side that feel that way as well, but as chair of the homeland security appropriations committee, let me be very clear that i don't think we should go to another short-term c.r. without a full-year appropriation of homeland security. not only is the defense department appropriations bill absolutely essential to the well-being of this nation, but so is the homeland security budget. they have complete jurisdiction of the customs and immigration over our safety and security at our powrts. we must certainly -- and our

airports and train stations. we most certainly can't let our guard down as it pertains to our overseas operations, but we most certainly can't let our guard down as it pertains to our safety right here at home. so i would hope both the republican and democratic leadership as we find our way through this complicated and difficult appropriations process, that we will remember defense and homeland security. i also as the manager of this bill want to ask unanimous consent for 12 committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. i see senator cornyn on the floor and i know he is going to call up and will have no objection from me to get his amendment pending. before that, i'd like to ask unanimous consent for senator casey's amendment 216 to come up

to be put in the pending column. senator casey will be here shortly to discuss his amendment and then we'll go in just a minute to senator cornyn. is there -- the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu, for mr. casey, proposes an amendment numbered 216. at the end of title 3, add the following -- ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading of that amendment, and our intention will be when senator casey comes to the floor to have an opportunity. before senator cornyn speaks, just one moment, i want to add a few comments about what happened this morning. we did get two amendment votes on the bill. those were the first two amendments, senator nelson's amendment and then senator snowe and i offered an amendment. we have approximately six other amendments pending not yet scheduled for a vote. they were most of them discussed

at some length yesterday on the floor, the most notable senator mcconnell's amendment where senator boxer and others strongly opposed. i would like to say just one thing in response to a comment as respectfully as i can that senator wicker made regarding the nelson amendment. he said something along the lines that senator nelson had found some new -- how did he say -- newfound enthusiasm for cutting the budget, and in defense of senator nelson, i just wanted to say that his enthusiasm is most certainly not newfounded. he has been a leader on our side in cutting the agencies and departments respectfully and appropriately under his jurisdiction. he has been the lead sponsor of legislation for a long time that has cut legislative spending, and i might say it's very difficult in his bill, madam chair, madam president, because he also has had to absorb absorb $22 million in additional expenses related to the operation of the visitors' center, which all of our

constituents enjoy and support. so he's absorbed that into his operating budget and still managed to cut. so i know senator wicker is relatively new to the senate, but i do want to remind him and others, senator nelson has been a leader in that field. i would like to now turn it over to senator cornyn. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'd like to call up amendment number 186 and ask its immediate consideration. i would ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 186. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you very much. madam president, this is an amendment, a very important amendment that addresses the three critical issues that face our country today. too many people out of work, the federal government engaged in runaway spending, and our

unsustainable national debt. this actually comes from a portion of the president's -- president barack obama's fiscal commission report which pointed out a texas program that had been in place since 1977 and its impact on providing oversight or review of wasteful or no longer needed programs or spending. and that's what this amendment does. it establishes a bipartisan united states authorization and sunset commission actually that would be composed of eight members of congress who would go through programs that have spending associated with them but that have not been authorized by the congress and to review redundancies and duplicative programs like those pointed out most significantly by the general accountability office just within the last week to ten days. as i said, this is modeled after

the sunset process that my state instituted in 1977 which has been enormously successful. it's eliminated more than 50 different state agencies and saved taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars. madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that senators vitter, enzi, demint, rubio, paul, ensign, ayotte and risch be added as cosponsors to my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: this is what the president's own fiscal commission said about such a concept. and madam president, i know that members of the senate and the political parties are divided about many things but this is something that is -- should be noncontroversial and should be bipartisan and i hope my colleagues would listen briefly and consider cosponsoring and joining us in passing this important amendment establishing this sunset commission. but this is what the president's own fiscal commission said about

this concept. they said -- quote -- "such a committee has been recommended many times and found bipartisan support. the original and arguably the most effective committee exists at the state level in texas. the legislature created the sunset commission in 1977 to eliminate waste and inefficiency in government agencies. estimates from reviews conducted between 1982 and 2009 showed 27-year savings of more than $780 million compared with expenditures of $28.6 million." they go on to point out that for every dollar spent on the sunset commission, it saved $27 in return. now, madam president, the -- we all know the challenges we face here in washington when it comes to proper oversight. once programs are created, even so-called temporary programs, they tend to take on a life of their own. indeed, i think that must be what ronald reagan was talking

about, one of my favorite quotations when he said a -- the closest thing to eternal life here on earth is a temporary government program. and we all know what happens once a program's created, then a constituency is created, they come in and ask for a cost-of-living or other increase and they grow and grow and grow and there's no one -- and i'm not criticizing the standing committees, but there's not adequate time or opportunity given to -- to -- looking at these programs to see whether they're still needed or whether their budgets are justified. and so you see these programs growing and federal spending growing and no real time and effort given to cutting out wasteful spending and eliminating programs that have not been authorized or which are duplicative or redundant, as pointed out by the general accountability office. so my hope is that when we have

a chance to vote on this amendment here soon, that we can all answer this important call. and i think in the process ask the single-most important question that congress can ask when it comes to spending and programs and that question is: is this program still needed? the sunset commission would help us do our job of oversight and accountability. it would help us rein in runaway federal spending and hopefully, along with growth of the private sector and investment by entrepreneurs and job creators, help us get past this -- the place we are now where we have not only runaway spending but unsustainable debt and a private sector sitting on the sidelines and not creating new jobs the way we need them to do. mr. cornyn: so, madam president, i would yield the floor and thank the bill manager. ms. landrieu: would the senator yield for just a question on his

amendment? since most of the programs that i'm familiar with at the federal level have built-in sunsets because they have limited authorizations, how does the senator's amendment either override that or undercut that and why is his amendment necessary? mr. cornyn: well, madam president, i'd be glad to respond to the question from the senator from louisiana. as the senator knows, many programs that are currently up and running are operating under the basis of an appropriation without an authorization by the committee of jurisdiction and that's part of what the sunset commission would look at, because, frankly, because it hadn't been authorized, the kind of oversight that's really needed in order to scrub the numbers and to make sure the program's still necessary and the spending is appropriate. that that just doesn't happen. this also is designed specifically to deal with what the general accountability pointed out in the last week or ten days where we have really

dozens of programs designed to do exactly the same thing. in other words, rather than making sure that existing programs work, we tend to layer those on over time, forgetting perhaps that those existing programs even are there. so this would be designed primarily to do two things. one, two deal with programs where there's spending because there's been an appropriation made but no authorization. and it would also deal with that duplication. what it would -- if, in fact, the congress does come back and authorize the program, that's one way they could respond to the report of the commission. ms. landrieu: well, i thank the senator for his response. i would just comment, and i know he's very genuine in wanting to root out the waste and the duplication and i most certainly am myself, i would only say that for programs that are operating under appropriations only, the senator will know that that authorization is only intact for one year under the general rules, when you authorize or appropriate, it is only for one

year at a time. and it can only be extended by an act of this body every year. on the authorized programs, to my knowledge -- and i'm going to get the committee to check -- of jurisdiction, i've asked homeland security, which has jurisdiction over government operations on our side, to check. it's my understanding that every authorized program has a length of time and that each committee here is responsible for their own oversight. but if the senator is suggesting that either the committees either can't or don't do their work and we need an extra commission, you know, we will consider that. i understand what the senator's trying to do but i'm going to have the homeland security team on our side look at it and we' we'll -- you know, we'll respond back. mr. cornyn: madam president, if i can just briefly respond. i don't think anyone believes that the way things are operating now is -- is appropriate, and what this does is to seek to bring a new set of eyes, particularly with regard to the spending levels and programs, whether they're

necessary. as the president's own fiscal commission pointed out, this is not a partisan issue and we know that with that kind of increased scrutiny, we can begin to cut out duplicative and unnecessary spending and to prioritize those that are really important, things like homeland security. part of the problem we have is that the spending we've -- levels we have today make it almost impossible for us to decide what our priorities are and to fund those because everything seems to be a priority. well, everything can't be a priority. everything can't be essential. and so this is just a commonsense approach based on an effective state model that would allow congress to do its job better and to deal with the most important issues that face the country today, which is runaway spending and unsustainable debt and un -- and too high unemployment. madam president, i yield the i e

floor. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator from texas and hopefully as we go through the day, we'll have discussions on that amendment and others. let me just try to give a recap. my ranking member's on the floor and we'd like to continue to proceed today, as we did yesterday, fairly orderly and we've made some progress. as i said, we got two amendments voted on already. there are now several amendments pending and i'd like to ask, for clarification, we have johanns 161, vitter, 178, mcconnell, 183, casey, 216, and cornell -- and cornyn 186. those are all pending but no time has been established for a vote. can i ask the chair to confirm that. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. ms. landrieu: can i also ask the chair that we have filed and have been discussed hutchison

197, paul 199, and sanders 207 that are not pending but have been discussed on the floor. does such a list exist at the desk? the presiding officer: those amendments have been filed and they are the next to be offered. ms. landrieu: i thank the chair. let me just say, again, how pleased i am that only a handful of amendments out of the 68 that are pending actually pertain directly to the program that we're getting ready hopefully to authorize. actually, out of the 68 amendments pending, only 14 -- 14 are related to the -- this particular program and three others to the small business administration itself. i'd like to believe that that's because senator snowe and i have

tried so hard to take all of our members' views into consideration as we've moved this bill through the process. as i said yesterday, we've worked on this bill on the reauthorization of this important program, the largest federal research program for small business in the country, the largest program, we've worked on this reauthorization for six years. so in the last three congresses, this bill has been debated and debated, both in, on the floor, at -- in the house and in the senate. it has been modified many different times to accommodate different views. the great news is, the bill is still strong, it's still very focused. it provides additional percentage of funding for small business so that they can actually have access to the research and development dollars

like big businesses often have better access. this gives an open door, an opportunity for small businesses where some of our best patents, our best inventors, our most -- our strongest, our risk takers are in very small start-ups. we want to encourage that, not discourage it, particularly because the country is fighting its way -- and i mean that, we're fighting our way out of this recession. it is not easy and it's not going to happen automatically. it's going to happen by what actions that the federal government takes, state governments and local governments creating atmosphere so that private sector can grow. this bill helps to improve that atmosphere and that's why we're talking about this. many people have come to the floor and said, why aren't we talking about closing the deficit? we are talking about closing the deficit and the debt, because one of the ways that we do that is by creating private-sector jobs.

and this bill is one of the bills filed in this congress -- i'm not saying it's the top, i'm not saying it's the absolute best, but i can promise you, it's one of the best bills that are filed that will have a direct and immediate impact on job creation in america. that's why senator snowe and i are spending our time talking about it, because it's a jobs bill, it's also a deficit closing bill. it is also a debt reduction bill. it's also a great bill that's going to help level the playing field between large and small companies and to give some of those risk takers out there that look at washington and shake their head and say, "what is going on? doesn't anyone pay attention to us?" yes, we are paying attention. we know you're out there and we know that if we can provide an open door, access to federal government research-and-development dollars, that we can have hundreds, literally hundreds of companies grow and expand.

one example i gave yesterday -- and i'm going to give many more today -- is qualcomm. unknown 25 years ago, 35 people as a start-up, started in dr. jacob's den, got an early funding through this program, sbir, got multiple grants because you can get multiple grants as your technology improves and if it shows promi promise, it most certainly showed promise. of course, at a point, they were recognized by the venture capital community, investors came in and the history is shown now that that company employs 17,500 people and paid last year more in taxes to their local san diego-based company, local governments in california and around the country of $1 billion. that covers half of cost of this entire program, one company. so that's why senator snowe and i have spent so much time on this reauthorization and why she has been fighting for this

program for actually almost 20 years since she was a member of congress. this program is one of the ones that work. we have tweaked it. we have improved t we are extending our authorizations from four years to eight years to give certainty. so those are just some comments that i had to make about the bill. we have, as i said, 68 amendments that have been filed. please, members, if you are interested in getting your amendments pending, try to come to the floor to see what we can do to work that out. i'm not sure we'll get to final passage of the bill this week. but we do want to get as much work done on the bill as we can, so that when we get back, it will be the first hopefully order of business. but we'll see. you know, maybe there'll be a breakthrough in the next two or three days and we can get this done before we leave. that would send a very positive signal. but we're working with the leadership to see if that can be done. and if not, we'll continue to work this week to get as many amendments offered and pending

and some votes today and tomorrow. i see my ranking member on the floor and would like to turn the time over to her now. ms. snowe: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. snowe: madam president -- and i certainly concur with the comments that have been made by the chair of the small business committee, senator landrieu, who has, you know, exhibited tremendous leadership in bringing these initiatives to the floor for reauthorization, since it's been a long journey for these programs and reaching to the point of reauthorizing them for the first time in morning hour thank -- for the first time in more than eight years, with ten extensions of both of these programs that are of indisputable value to the growth in america when this comes to innovation and invention on the part of small businesses. and there undeniably have been

critically effective -- and they undeniably have been critically effective. the research and development dollars that are available in more than 11 agencies across the government, including the national institutes of health and the department of defense, the department of energy, to name a few, have really provided invaluable support to the entrepreneurial spirit that is so critical to this country. and, as the chair indicated, it is the small businesses in america, the one segment of the economy that undeniably creates the kind of jobs that's so important to this country. in fact, they create two-thirds of all the net new jobs. 99% of all the employers across the country. and so we have to do everything that we can to make sure that they're getting access to the kind of capital and the support

to the research and development dollars that are available at the national level. these two programs, especially the small business innovation research program was created back in 1982, as the chair indicated. i was the original cosponsor of this legislation when i was serving in the u.s. house of representatives. because we knew that it could ultimately be a great catalyst for innovative and tech million ttechnologicalideas in -- ameris provided it without question. if you look at what the national academy of sciences has studied, it called the program a sounding concept and effective in pravment just over 20% of companies they surveyed indicated they were founded entirely or partly because of the sbir program. over two-thirds of the survey respondents sthaid their sbir projects would not have taken place without the funding. each year over one-third of the firms awarded sbir funds

participate in the program for the first time. so, again, it's encouraging innovation across a broad spectrum of businesses and creating additional competition among suppliers for the federal government's procurement agencies. and so we see that it produces over and over again the benefits, the jobs, the creativity. as the chair indicated about qualcomm, that's true. when we saw the sonicare toothbrush in may, we have a company that developed armor for our troops in iraq and afghanistan. so if we can get the infusion of these dollars -- but dollars that are already being expended by federal agencies, but redirect them to small businesses into making sure that they're getting a fair share of the federal pie, then they can put that money to good use in creating the kind of jobs and the inventions that are so important to moving this -- this country forward in the 21st

century. so i'm very pleased that we're at this point. hopefully we'll be able to get this legislation through and signed into law because it is critical to venture capital investments. it is a prominent source of investments in biotechnology, research andvestment as we know, it takes 10-15 years to bring a drug to market and to complete the testing of the drug process on the way costs millions and millions of dollars. so the biotechnology companies are able to commercialize their technologies with this kind of backing and these programs and many that is being expended at the federal level in these key agencies, such as the national institutes of health. such investments in biotechnology and medical device industries total more than $1 billion in 2007. so again, it's a demonstration

of the kind of value and results that we achieve through this program, without providing additional federal appropriations. it's not as if we're spending more money on a new program. we're not. what we're saying is for the research and development dollars that are already being appropriated within the federal agencies, we're asking that they set aside more than $2.5 billion in federal research and development to fund our nation's smallest firms because they're the ones that are most likely to create the jobs and to commercialize their products. i mean, they've demonstrated time and again, year after year, at an all-time high, that the innovations coming out of small businesses and directly through these two programs. i mean, their inventions reach the marketplace. they commercialize them. qualcomm, yes, 25 years ago started with a $1.5 million grant from the sbir program.

they had less than a dozen employees. now currently they have more than 17,000 employees for their company and a multibillion-dollar fortune 500 company. so again it is an example of how this program can work. roughly 25% of the r&d -- in talking about the information technology and innovation foundation, they indicated in their report recently that 25% of the top 100 innovations came from small businesses funded through the sbir program. and they indicated further that it's a powerful indication that this program has become a key force in the innovation economy of the united states. if there was ever a time we should be supporting this program properly and expeditiously, it is here and

now. we created 36,000 jobs in the month prior to last. in order to reach the pr prerecession unemployment levels, it would take eight consecutive years of creating jobs, 200,000 a month, in order to achieve the prerecession levels of unemployment of 5%. so, again, i think that that is an indication of how far we need to go to create jobs in this economy. and it's creating, i think, the anxiety, the apprehension, the fear all across this country because people are struggling to find jobs or to keep the ones that they have. so this would go a long ways to benefiting the sector of the economy that does create the jobs, and that is of course small businesses. so again, madam president, i would hope that we could move quickly to get this legislation enacted and signed into law and to create the kind of jobs that people in this country

undeniably deserve. i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, this time senator case circumstance whose amendment is pending, would like to speak for a few minutes and then i know at 12:00, under unanimous consent, we've a speech from the senator from connecticut. i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 senator portman be recognized for up to 20 minutes as if in morning business for the purpose of giving his maiden speech on the senate floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. first i want to thank senator

landrieu for her leadership on these many issues and especially on this critically important legislation to small businesses and for allowing me just a few minutes to talk about the amendment that i've offered. it's amendment number 216, and it addresses a crucial issue that feablghts subcontractors, particularly subcontractors who are minority-owned or women-owned firms in the united states of america. when i was the auditor general of pennsylvania, we audited this program or a similar program at the state level and found all kinds of problems, all kinds of abuses when prime contractors don't do what they're supposed to do. in many instances prime contractors routinely will list a minority-owned firm or a woman-owned firm to make their application in a competitive process without informing the named subcontractor and then puts that subcontractor at a

disadvantage. and once the contract is awarded, the business is not given to the named subcontractor. so the purpose of this amendment is very simple: it will ensure that all subcontractors are aware of their inclusion in federal procurement bids by prime contractors and establish a system in which those subcontractors can report any fraudulent activity. it's a simple but critically important remedy to part of this problem. we have more work to do on this issue, but it will give subcontractors the ability to more fairly and more fully participate in contracting. and that's the least that we should be doing at a time when so many small businesses are struggling to survive and to thrive. and i'm grateful that senator landrieu gave us this opportunity, and i would yield the floor to her. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator from pennsylvania. and i do intend to support his

amendment. i think it's an excellent one and hopefully we can get a vote on that at sometime today or tomorrow. at this time, under unanimous consent, i think we have a speech from the senator from connecticut. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: thank you, mr. president. the people from connecticut sent me here to fight for their interests and today i rise to amplify their voices and share their concerns in my first remarks from the floor of the united states senate. mr. blumenthal: i know these voices firsthand from listeningg day after day, year after year, traveling the state to see people, where they live and work. and recently on a two-week listening tour as one of my first actions as a member of the united states senate. and what i'm hearing is that people are still hurting and still struggling, trying to stay in their homes, make ends meet,

find jobs, and keep their families together. and they feel rightly that washington isn't listening. washington isn't heeding their voices or responding with the right action or results. the people of connecticut are clear about their priorities. they want to be back at work, with good jobs and a growing economy and responsible, smart cuts in government spending to reduce our debt and deficit. and they want to know that washington is listening to them. and that their leaders are fighting for them, standing up and speaking out against powerful special interests and predatory wrongdoing, and that's the kind of listener and leader they sent me here to be. in the northwest corner of my state known as "the kauaiest corner," the president -- the quiet container, the president of the